Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Clark Vs. Commun. for Nonviolence

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 1984

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

56 entries 6 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Grace US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1983
  2. Kovacs Vs. Cooper US Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1949
  3. Stromberg Vs. California US Supreme Court · May 18, 1931
  4. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  5. Whitney Vs. California US Supreme Court · May 16, 1927
  6. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  7. Clark v. Commun
    Search
  8. for Nonviolence - 468 U.S. 288 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Commun
    Search
  9. for Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) Clark v. Community
    Search
  10. in favor of the Park Service. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt
    Search
  11. We assume for present purposes, but do not decide, that such is the case, cf. United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  12. and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  13. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry
    Search
  14. Heffron v. International
    Search
  15. Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia
    Search
  16. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public
    Search
  17. to be communicative and that, in context, would reasonably be understood by the viewer to be communicative. Spence v. Washington
    Search
  18. Tinker v. Des
    Search
  19. a substantial governmental interest, and if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech. United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  20. have the purpose and direct effect of limiting expression, but are nevertheless valid. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  21. regulation need not be judged solely by reference Page 468 U. S. 297 to the demonstration at hand. Heffron v. International
    Search
  22. a reasonable regulation of the manner in which a demonstration may be carried out. As in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  23. analysis demonstrates that the Park Service regulation is sustainable under the four-factor standard of United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  24. or how an acceptable level of preservation is to be attained. We do not believe, however, that either United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  25. and then based a crucial part of its analysis on the time, place, or manner cases. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  26. As Justice Black, who was never tolerant of limits on speech, emphatically pointed out in his separate opinion in Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  27. has afforded First Amendment protection to expressive conduct that qualifies as symbolic speech. See, e.g., Tinker v. Des
    Search
  28. Brown v. Louisiana
    Search
  29. a context in making this determination. The leading case is Spence v. Washington
    Search
  30. Creative Non-Violence v. Watt
    Search
  31. against segregation. Brown v. Louisiana
    Search
  32. the delicate task of inquiring into the sincerity of claimants asserting First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder
    Search
  33. Welsh v. United
    Search
  34. Associated Press v. United
    Search
  35. Roth v. United
    Search
  36. States, 354 U. S. 476 , 354 U. S. 484 (1957). See also Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  37. A mere apprehension of difficulties should not be enough to overcome the right to free expression. See United States v. Grace
    Search
  38. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
    Search
  39. regulations then in effect did not extend to respondents' proposed activities. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt
    Search
  40. distinguishes the test applicable to time, place, and manner restrictions and the test articulated in United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  41. to allow the expressive conduct it now claims to permit as a matter of grace. See, e.g., Women Strike for Peace v. Morton
    Search
  42. A Quaker Action Group v. Morton
    Search
  43. United States v. Abney
    Search
  44. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  45. Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640 (1981). But see United States v. Grace
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Commun
    Search
  47. Clark v. Community
    Search
  48. Creative Non-Violence v. Watt
    Search
  49. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  50. Spence v. Washington
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial